US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Pi brat]

In addition, the way it was described it would really be a super seniority right to any captain opening ahead of any west pilot - same equipment not required. In theory, a guy displaced from the F28 in 2000 or whenever they went away could exercise this "first right of refusal" to a 330 captain opening ahead of a west pilot hired 10 years earlier than that east pilot.

Jim

Where did you see that? Here is what I saw from Ferguson:

"or add a “reinstatement rights” component to the new contract so that any East pilot who, however long ago held captain, would be granted a “first right of refusal” for a new captain vacancy ahead of any former AWA pilot"

I don't see those details in Eric's update.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Where did you see that? Here is what i saw from Ferguson:

"or add a “reinstatement rights” component to the new contract so that any East pilot who, however long ago held captain, would be granted a “first right of refusal” for a new captain vacancy ahead of any former AWA pilot"

I don't see those details in Eric's update.

"any East pilot who...would be granted a "first right of refusal" for a new captain vacancy ahead of any former AWA pilot"

So someone displaced in 1991 would have dibs on "a new captain vacancy" (not the equipment displaced from but any new captain vacancy) ahead of "any former AWA pilot" (no matter when the AWA pilot was hired). It doesn't say it's limited to one new captain vacancy so it could be for any new captain vacancy. As stated, it basically says that a significant percentage of East pilots would be awarded any new captain vacancy on any equipment whenever they want ahead of any West pilot for as long as they're on the seniority list. A true first right of refusal provision covering all pilots, East and West, going forward would protect both sides. As described, this is not such a first right of refusal - it applies only to East pilots displaced any time in their career and applies to any new captain vacancy. Where's the West protection in that?

Any contract provision allows anything that isn't specified in that provision, so by not specifying, anything is a possibility. Now, I'll freely admit that this "whisper campaign" could have given more specifics, or may not even exist for that matter, but it has been suggested on this forum in the past that the other contract sections could be changed to offset a loss over the Nic list. I read Ferguson's letter as a warning to anyone who thinks it's as simple as giving Nic in section 22 then nullifying Nic in other sections is wrong - doing so is a DFR suit waiting to happen.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

Dupe

 

[Pi brat]

"any East pilot who...would be granted a "first right of refusal" for a new captain vacancy ahead of any former AWA pilot"

So someone displaced in 1991 would have dibs on "a new captain vacancy" (not the equipment displaced from but any new captain vacancy) ahead of "any former AWA pilot" (no matter when the AWA pilot was hired). It doesn't say it's limited to one new captain vacancy so it could be for any new captain vacancy. As stated, it basically says that a significant percentage of East pilots would be awarded any new captain vacancy on any equipment whenever they want ahead of any West pilot for as long as they're on the seniority list. A true first right of refusal provision covering all pilots, East and West, going forward would protect both sides. As described, this is not such a first right of refusal - it applies only to East pilots displaced any time in their career and applies to any new captain vacancy. Where's the West protection in that?

Any contract provision allows anything that isn't specified in that provision, so by not specifying, anything is a possibility. Now, I'll freely admit that this "whisper campaign" could have given more specifics, or may not even exist for that matter, but it has been suggested on this forum in the past that the other contract sections could be changed to offset a loss over the Nic list. I read Ferguson's letter as a warning to anyone who thinks it's as simple as giving Nic in section 22 then nullifying Nic in other sections is wrong - doing so is a DFR suit waiting to happen.

Jim

He doesn't say anything about A/C type, so unless you have some additional insight, you are making that assumption. It may be what he means, but that is not what he says, he is talking about time.

What difference does time make. Should a west captain that lost his bid in 2008 have more rights than the east captain that lost his is 2001? I don't think so, you would just have to apply the standards equally. You could alter it to account for bases and A/C lost, again as long as you didn't rig it to favor one group. LAS is gone, BOS is gone. The west 737 is gone. So some rights could be transferred.

The west already has this provision and I think it could actually help more west pilots than east.

 

[BoeingBoy]

He doesn't say anything about A/C type, so unless you have some additional insight, you are making that assumption. It may be what he means, but that is not what he says, he is talking about time.

As are you - I assume if a specific isn't mentioned it's a possibility, you assume if a specific isn't mentioned it must exist. He said "a new captain opening", not "a new captain opening on the equip displaced from." The only time involved is "ever" for East pilots.

What difference does time make. <snip> you would just have to apply the standards equally.

But what he said isn't applied equally - it's only for East pilots. Time - what if an East pilot displaced in 1991 is given a right of first refusal to a new captain opening and that opening is on the 330. Most likely the East pilot is back to being a captain, possibly on better equipment than displaced from in 1991, yet gets the right to bid the A330 (which wasn't in the fleet in 1991) ahead of any west pilot.

You could alter it to account for bases and A/C lost, again as long as you didn't rig it to favor one group.

See - you accuse me of improperly making assumptions, then you talk about altering the rumored "proposals". Why alter them if, as you say, I'm making assumptions that weren't said...

The west already has this provision and I think it could actually help more west pilots than east.[/quest]

The west provision disappears with the west contract when a single contract is ratified, so that's a straw man argument. Again, as stated it's a provision for only East pilots for "A" new captain opening, not the job displaced from, not in order of seniority, not for west pilots. A sure DFR...

Jim

 

[Metroyet]

had a fumes event yesterday including a trip for five to the hospital in ft. Myers. Ship 450, has previous and recent history.
D.h. back now to clt....

Of the 5 poor souls sent to the "hospital", how many were pax? Lemme guess...uh....ZERO just like every other time? Vote McKee.

 

[traderjake]

No way Usapa will get organized
No way Usapa will have enough money
No way there will be enough cards returned for a vote
No way ALPA will lose the election
No way the ninth will rule against us
.......

Here's the bottom line.

No way USAPA can ever go on strike over a DOH contract.

 

[crazystnic]

had a fumes event yesterday including a trip for five to the hospital in ft. Myers. Ship 450, has previous and recent history.
D.h. back now to clt....

Is that a 737?

 

[Metroyet]

Is that a 737?

Obviously. 2 pilots, 3 fa's. 2+3=5.

 

[crazystnic]

Just got off the phone with an east bud of mine that is in phx for training. He passed along that they have 5 east check airman working out here last week and every single one is publicly supporting the west candidates for union office, not only that, they claim the majority of all east check airman are supporting Eric F. One has to wonder why they would choose to do that, but it's good news none the less

Of course check airmen might do this.. Senority is not so much an issue with them...
either ways EF will not win.... that is very obvious

 

[Pi brat]

As are you - I assume if a specific isn't mentioned it's a possibility, you assume if a specific isn't mentioned it must exist. He said "a new captain opening", not "a new captain opening on the equip displaced from." The only time involved is "ever" for East pilots.



But what he said isn't applied equally - it's only for East pilots. Time - what if an East pilot displaced in 1991 is given a right of first refusal to a new captain opening and that opening is on the 330. Most likely the East pilot is back to being a captain, possibly on better equipment than displaced from in 1991, yet gets the right to bid the A330 (which wasn't in the fleet in 1991) ahead of any west pilot.



See - you accuse me of improperly making assumptions, then you talk about altering the rumored "proposals". Why alter them if, as you say, I'm making assumptions that weren't said...


The west provision disappears with the west contract when a single contract is ratified, so that's a straw man argument. Again, as stated it's a provision for only East pilots for "A" new captain opening, not the job displaced from, not in order of seniority, not for west pilots. A sure DFR...

Jim

Now you are making more assumptions. Go back and read my first reply. I asked you where you saw it, as I didn't see those details. He said "any" then put a time qualifier on it.

It doesn't disappear if it is added to the new joint contract. Aren't there other west provisions that will be included? We have already agreed on the west "long rate". Can't sections be reopened?

The reason I put the other examples in there is because suggested the very thing in a phone conversation with Koontz. But I never suggested going back the DC-3 or that if you held an F-28 captain you had first right to an A330. But my idea is to generate contract provisions that help both sides.

I asked Eric to clarify his statement. Does he want the west's first right of refusal provision gone or not.

Again I ask. How do you know what the suggestion was? Have you talked to any of the candidates?

 

[SparrowHawk]

What's up with this lawsuit? I don't recall hearing much about it.

US Airways Pilots File Suit Against the Airline Alleging Violation of Legal Obligation to Bargain in Good Faith


US Airline Pilots Association Takes Legal Action to Address US Airways' Alleged Violation of Status Quo During Negotiations


CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- May 31, 2011 -- The pilots of US Airways, represented by the US Airline Pilots Association (USAPA), have filed a complaint against defendant US Airways in the U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York alleging that US Airways has violated its duty to maintain the status quo during contract negotiations as required by the Railway Labor Act (RLA).

 

[Move2CLT]

Of course check airmen might do this.. Senority is not so much an issue with them...
either ways EF will not win.... that is very obvious

Obvious?

Most of you angry FOs seem to be crapping your pants over his chances.

I guess I'd be worried too if I were you.

 

[fodase]

Of course check airmen might do this.. Senority is not so much an issue with them...
either ways EF will not win.... that is very obvious

So the people wanting to move on and get a contract are voting for Eric . Those wanting to stay separate vote for the east candidates. Sounds about right to me.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Now you are making more assumptions.

You're trying hard to make something of this that wasn't said. For starters, here's the exact quote of what was posted:

It has come to light that certain candidates running for office may be promoting a “whisper campaign” regarding yet another alternate plan should USAPA be unsuccessful in Judge Silver’s courtroom. It appears they might be “floating” these ideas in effort to garner support in this election from those who are still hoping to find a way to subvert the effects of the Nicolau Award. This plan includes any number of means to “mitigate” the arbitrated seniority list through the alteration of other sections in the combined contract.

One idea involves a scheme whereby pay is based solely on longevity with no differentiation for seat or equipment flown. This plan includes an extremely protracted and non-linear pay scale, with the top pay found around the thirty-year mark. This would be heavily weighted to benefit the East pilots almost exclusively. Other components of this “Plan C” would attempt to further delay combined operations, or place fences around the various bases, or preserve East Coast upgrades for East pilots only, or add a “reinstatement rights” component to the new contract so that any East pilot who, however long ago held captain, would be granted a “first right of refusal” for a new captain vacancy ahead of any former AWA pilot.

Does he say that the plan includes ways to mitigate the Nic list through changes to other sections of the joint contract? Yes.

Doesn't that imply that the changes to other sections of the joint contract would more favor the East pilots than the West pilots? Yes (or they wouldn't mitigate the Nic).

Does he say that a single pay scale would benefit the East pilots "almost exclusively"? Yes.

If he's merely talking about putting the West reinstatement rights language into the joint contract, would that be unusual? No, some provisions of East & West contracts will end up in the joint contract so having the same provision for all pilots wouldn't be worth mentioning.

Does he say the reinstatement right provision for East pilots would actually be for East and West pilots? No, only East pilots.

Does he say that any such reinstatement right for East pilots would be a one-time provision for one displacement like the current West language? No, it applies to any East pilot ever displaced.

Does he say that any such reinstatement right for East pilots would not be given to pilots already holding the job displaced from or higher when the joint contract went into effect? No, it would be given to any East pilot that was ever displaced.

Does he say that such a reinstatement right would only apply to the captain job displaced from? No, the only qualifier for exercising the reinstatement right is "a new captain opening." This is in line with giving all East pilots that have ever been displaced a reinstatement right to any new captain opening.

Does he say that the reinstatement right for East pilots is "use or lose" like the current West language? No.

Does he say that the reinstatement right for East pilots has priority only over all vacancy bidders? No, it has priority over any West pilots.

Does he say that the reinstatement right for East pilots is seniority based among pilots holding the same reinstatement right? No, it has priority over any West pilots - some of whom may (or may not if only East pilots get reinstatement rights) have the same reinstatement right and be more senior.

One thing you've shown is why agreements like LOA 93 passed but when everyone learns the details nobody admits to voting for them. The devil is in the details. You assume that details not given aren't there and then assume that changes can be made to make the details more balanced (meaning you realize that the suggested provisions are anti-West but won't admit it). I think I'll go with the anti-West to start with since they're said to be ways to minimize the effect of the Nic and the only way to do that is have anti-West provisions in sections other than 22.

I have absolutely no idea which candidate(s) may be floating these ideas, but my guess is that it's who I think is your choice - Hummel and ticket. You want to present him in the best possible light, which is why you assume that the anti-West details aren't there if they weren't mentioned while at the same time saying that the anti-west details (that aren't there!!!) can be modified to be more balanced.

Jim